• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Islamic Dilemma

I don't know. That's why I asked. There are certainly people gaming the system, but I have no evidence to show any certain percentage nor do I know how to identify someone that's doing it.

I think it's going to be really difficult to identify it. It's probably a very subjective identification.

I agree. So in that case do you give up and throw out all entitlements? Seems like you drill into the numbers and find at least a ball park, an educated guess even.

Something.
 
One would think that if it was as widespread as pubs claim that it is (see also: voter fraud), then it would manifest itself in a way that could be statistically measurable. After all, these agencies -govt, NPO, and private - collect tons of data. If economists can figure out the dynamics of drug and prostitution markets (see Levitt's work), I find it hard to believe that there's no way to investigate this.

Or, you could simply refer to the mountains of scholarship across disciplines that show that these phenomena are nowhere near as prevalent as the talking points suggest.

shrug

I honestly just don't know what kind of information goes to the agencies. What does a welfare recipient have to report? Are they obligated to job search? Are there any obligations at all or does a X amount of money hit the account on X day each month?
 
I agree. So in that case do you give up and throw out all entitlements? Seems like you drill into the numbers and find at least a ball park, an educated guess even.

Something.

No, certainly not. I think there should be reform to the system to a degree, but what and how that's done is something I'll leave to the guys that are paid to do it.
 
81DFq7QGS9L._SX355_.jpg
 
I honestly just don't know what kind of information goes to the agencies. What does a welfare recipient have to report? Are they obligated to job search? Are there any obligations at all or does a X amount of money hit the account on X day each month?

We established long ago on this here board that welfare recipients are required to make fairly comprehensive reports on a regular basis, and that there is pretty good oversight . This was all built into the welfare reform package passed in the 90's by Cinton/Gingrich. None of it has been rolled back that I know of.

Of course, the narrative of the foolish (or nefarious) liberals keeping the poor poor must be kept alive to push the agenda of spending cuts and tax cuts. It has a purpose.

I think the more interesting (and more accurate) narrative is that of board rooms across America (comprised of libs and pubs) being just fine with the welfare state and expressing no concern over who is 'deserving' of better options yadda yadda. Their shareholders don;t give a shit about much else than a line that goes up and to the right, so it is much more comfortable for them to blame the poor (often working poor) for their poverty and to nurture unicorn-ish theories about why they are poor.
 
Again, someone presents opposing viewpoints, you just lock them away? I've heard of these methods before.

Do you prefer to just have a circle jerk where you congratulate each other about how right you are? I thought being liberal meant you were open and inclusive of things that aren't just like you. I guess you draw the line at political ideology.

You seriously thought that? Seriously? Didn't you know this is a Safe Space here, so keep your hurtful views to yourself.
 
One would think that if it was as widespread as pubs claim that it is (see also: voter fraud), then it would manifest itself in a way that could be statistically measurable. After all, these agencies -govt, NPO, and private - collect tons of data. If economists can figure out the dynamics of drug and prostitution markets (see Levitt's work), I find it hard to believe that there's no way to investigate this.

Or, you could simply refer to the mountains of scholarship across disciplines that show that these phenomena are nowhere near as prevalent as the talking points suggest.

shrug

Let's not pretend that would matter. SJWs have a pretty good answer for widespread, statically measurable social problems they'd rather not confront. Blame that ish on privilege and move on.
 
I haven't been keeping up with the thread but it's good to know the Islamic dilemma is the same problem as the American dilemma. It all comes down to #parents
 
You guys and your fuggin stats. Don't need no damn stats. #whytry2016

I haven't been keeping up with the thread but it's good to know the Islamic dilemma is the same problem as the American dilemma. It all comes down to #parents

These two posts make interesting companions. We've got "fuggin stats" on #parents.

And you say? #whytry2016
 
Your "everyone should have two parents but if they don't I don't have a plan for them" policy is platform item #1 on the #whytry2016 checklist
 
Your "everyone should have two parents but if they don't I don't have a plan for them" policy is platform item #1 on the #whytry2016 checklist

You seem smart/mature enough to know that that's not even close to the opinion dissenting from yours. Please leave this variety of garbage to others.
 
You seem smart/mature enough to know that that's not even close to the opinion dissenting from yours. Please leave this variety of garbage to others.

We can try again with "50 years of failed policy" so #whytry2016 if that fits better.
 
He's got nothing because there is nothing. All theories no data-based solutions

To be fair, this is pretty consistent with the field. Heritage and Cato, for as many proposals as they fund, has really offered little empirical substantiation to the research program, facilitated by the Clinton administration no less, that attempted to empirically dismantle the welfare state.

The closest examples that I can think of would be Oscar Lewis's much-maligned qualitative work on "the culture of poverty" (see here and a comprehensive rebuttal here), the Moynihan report (see here for a much-abridged and annotated version), and a particularly partisan reading of William Julius Wilson's early work on effects of concentrated poverty (see here, here, and here). The latter, IMO, was tremendously important for Clinton-era policy and, subsequently, the current state of the welfare state.

See, it's not that hard and I don't even buy into this garbage.
 
I honestly just don't know what kind of information goes to the agencies. What does a welfare recipient have to report? Are they obligated to job search? Are there any obligations at all or does a X amount of money hit the account on X day each month?

There are a ton of programs, administered on different levels and varying by state or municipality, under the umbrella of "welfare," so if you honestly want to move beyond the talking points, then you have to specify which programs and agencies you are referring to.

For instance, a lot of programs oriented towards working mothers require a certain number of hours either at work or job-seeking (defined similarly to how BLS calculates the unemployment rate). A lot of these programs have fluctuating financial cut-offs, as well, to the point where a lot of the folks you would assume would be enrolled in a program (eg Legal Aid) are not poor enough to qualify. You have to be really poor and really unemployed to qualify for a lot of food stamp and cash aid-based programs. You can't have a criminal record/commit felonies and live in public housing. You can't be evicted and keep your housing voucher, etc. etc. etc.

It's an organization-by-organization thing, in my experience, as is the particular data that these programs collect. My limited experience with public housing, Section 8 and benefits hearings convinced me that the organizations have built-in mechanisms of uncovering and dealing with fraud.

That being said, I worked in a grocery store for two years in Brooklyn and can attest to having observed quite a bit of stuff that likely would count as fraud: using food stamps to buy toilet paper, paper towels, and hand soap, for instance. I'm not sure that these are the type of violations that you're referring to because they always struck me as survival mechanisms in the face of bureaucracy that lags behind the material conditions that underscore need. Never once did I observe someone attempt to buy alcohol or other "vice" items with food stamps, however. Alas, #anecdotes.

In these kinds of cases, though, it's not just the recipient who is complicit, but it's also the establishments/owners/capitalists (if we want to go there) themselves. Enforcement, as in the case of immigration policy, has to cut both ways on supply and demand fronts. Regardless, it doesn't seem to be any more prevalent of a phenomenon than voter fraud, welfare recipient drug use, or any of the other sensational dog whistles that, upon investigation, are revealed to be nothing more than bullshit speculation.

If you're really interested in learning more about these systems, as well as the people who are caught up in them, I'd recommend reading Kathryn Edin and Sharon Hays's research on working class mothers. That being said and it's not my area of study, but I find it hard to believe that you couldn't look up program qualifications and existing policy-oriented research that uses organizational data to answer some of your questions.
 
Last edited:
Let's not pretend that would matter. SJWs have a pretty good answer for widespread, statically measurable social problems they'd rather not confront. Blame that ish on privilege and move on.

I know that you're trolling, but I legitimately want to know what you mean by the bold.

When conservatives make a scene and, ultimately, convince the government to conduct natural experiments to test their hypotheses, research reveals over and over again that the millions (if not tens of millions of dollars) spent to test these hypotheses were spent to uncover very few incidences of the phenomena in question. And this happens across the board, no matter the issue and no matter the organization conducting the research.

From the perspective of a party that is at least putatively against bureaucratic bloat and reckless government spending, how does make any sense?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top